It's an obscure Pink Floyd reference. Get over it.

Selective Memory

September 11, 2001 was indeed a sad and tragic day that will haunt Americans for years to come. I mourn the loss of life and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones. However, I cannot and will not jump on the rah-rah "Let's Roll" bandwagon of melodrama mixed with hawkish propaganda.

If the lives of ~3000 who died at the hands of terrorist scum mean so much to us, why aren't we doing anything in Darfur, Sudan where tens – perhaps even hundreds – of thousands of people have died, are dying, and will die at the hands of genocidal scum? If we're so gung-ho about kicking Evil's ass, why didn't we do it in Congo , where millions died – not by a swift crash, explosion, or building collapse, but by starvation?

I just want to share a prayer included in this morning’s Magnificat readings (I’m sure this is copyrighted – please see http://www.magnificat.com to subscribe to this excellent publication):

“God of mercy and compassion, you see into those places in the heart that are carved out by pain and grief, those places that are darkened by hatred and destruction, those places that are deepened by compassion and love. Pour forth into all hearts the healing presence of your Holy Spirit, that we may love more deeply and more faithfully, so that the world will be spared the horror of which we are capable when we turn away from love. We ask in the name of him in whom all suffering humanity finds peace at the last, Jesus Christ, your Son and our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever. Amen.”

BTW – I have never gotten, nor will I ever get, all Toby Keith about anything for any reason whatsoever. 😉

“whether America’s innocents are more important to protect than any other country’s”

I would submit that America’s innocents are more important for the American government to protect than any other country’s. There are reasons why our forfathers founded this nation state, and among them was the defense of their progeny. I would expect the Congolese government to be more concerned with protecting Congolese innocents than with my sorry posterior, and would expect the other governments other nation-states of the world to do the same for their citizens. if, due to our size, power, and prosperity, we can also do something to assist the Sudanes and Congolese, I’m all for it. Unfortunately, most of these people are victims not of foreign invaders but of their own governments, and it is generally considered bad form to go around invading and occupying countries that you do not perceive to be a threat. Just look at the flak we’ve taken for removing one of the world’s worst dictators from a nation we did perceive to be a threat.

At the risk of being tacky, if one is not willing to let it all hang out to protect the little American girl next door from getting blown up by some jabbering nut job, then how genuine is one’s vocal concern for the well-being of the Starving Armenians?

FD – Darfur and the Congo are both pretty far off most people’s screens. I suspect a large part of the reason is that most people have never heard of Darfur, and couldn’t find the Congo with a map, both hands, and a technical manual. “Out of sight, out of mind,” is a pretty foundational human response – it is less an attitude than it is normal mental functioning. I recall that people got into a sufficient furor to force an American intervention in Somalia when the famine there reached the nightly news on a regular basis*. If the reporters gave a rat’s patootie about, say, Darfur, I suspect there might be a greater response. Whether anything truly constructive could be done, given the realities of Sudanese scociety, is another question. NATO got the Serbs out of Bosnia with a bombing campaign (of questionable justice), but Serbia is a relatively modern country. To pacify Sudan, I suspect one would have to occupy the place – not a happy prospect.

*Ironically, one can make the case that the American experience in Somalia was one of the more powerful factors in leading to 9-11.

Anglican,
Some of pragmatic concerns you bring up could also apply to the situation in Iraq. And while many argue for the justice of going into Iraq, the arguments all require a long chain of logic (weaving a path through extensive nation-building in multiple Middle Eastern countries, a dubious exercise that’s come back to haunt us more than once before), unless one believes the failed theory that Iraq harbored terrorists prior to all hell breaking loose, in which case there isn’t much logic to be found.

And to take your closing Somalia suggestion a step further, one can also make the case that our experience in Iraq has been one of the more powerful factors in encouraging global terrorism.

All of which conveniently avoids the heart of Funky’s original question – to which I’d simply reply, we’re a notoriously selfish society in almost every aspect. Why on earth would you expect the average American to give a damn about people halfway around the world when they’ve got “necessities” like cable bills and car lease payments to worry about? It’d be nice, but I’m not holding my breath.

Yes, you are correct. We are inconsistant. We live by double, tripple… standards by which we judge.

Let us reject the multiple standards. Let us judge OUR OWN actions relative to Darfur (I’m not kidding) by the standard,

“Do unto others ALL that you would have them do unto you.” Every ethical and religious tradition has such a rule. With 4,000,000 lives in the balance in Darfur, wouldn’t this be a good time to play by the rule? Yes.

There’s something to human psychology that affects the way we interpret emotional events. Those that we have a connection to are weighted heavier than those we have no connection to.

On 9/11, I think far more about the 40 passengers and crew — and even the 4 hijackers — than I do the thousands of the WTC or those at the Pentagon. My work at the morgue affects me that way.

When I think of hunger, I think first of the homeless in Pittsburgh. Most of the ones I knew as a paramedic are now dead. Yet they, in their homelessness, had more than the people in the favehlas of Brasil that I saw. And the slums of Brasil, which I have been to, hit harder than the starving of Dafur, which intellectually I know is far worse.

I’d like to think it balances out. The sum, over the world’s population, of the concern for a particular situation times the response (response should be a function of wealth — I don’t expect the folks of Dafur to help with the recent situations in my own family) would equal the need. People nearest respond the most, those furthest away the least, but the sum would be the need of the population affected.

That’s what I would hope. That’s not what it really is, but that might just be a need for better PR and news gathering.